ga

The lawyers at Miller & Zois, LLC don't have a weblog, but they're participating in the open-source lawyering movement anyway by sharing information on the Attorney Help Center page of their website. Here's their thinking--

The purpose of this Maryland Personal Injury Attorney Help Center is to serve as a resource for Maryland personal injury attorneys and other lawyers around the country representing injury victims. As we looked at personal injury sites on the Internet, we noticed that while many sites are good at talking about themselves and the types of personal injury cases they handle, few provide real information of assistance to injured victims or other personal injury lawyers.

At the Attorney Help Center, you'll find sample pleadings, motions, discovery, jury instructions, and more. An example of what's offered is "Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions," a comprehensive set of requests for admissions in a vehicle injury case that would work as a model in most states.

In Haubner v. Abercombie & Kent International, Inc., No. 1-03-2219 (1st Dist. 6/30/04), the First District held that an out-of-state defendant waived its objection to the circuit court's alleged lack of personal jurisdiction when it served a request for admission on the plaintiffs. In the following passage, the court explained the proper way of challenging personal jurisdiction:

According to 2-1105 of the Illinios Code, the jury demand is due at the same time a defendant's answer is due. 735 ILCS 5/2-1105(a) (2000). But what happens when the Defendant requests and receives additional time to file an answer? Does this also extend the deadline for filing a jury demand?

That was the issue in a recent Illinois appellate case in which the trial court ruled that the jury demand was untimely even though it was made within the extended deadline the court had given the defendant to answer. SeeLaba v. Kahay, No. 1-01-3101 (1st Dist. May 4, 2004).

Where the trial court extended the time for filing an answer, the request for filing a jury demand could not be untimely. Because the controlling date for defendant's jury demand was the date of the answer, we find that the trial court improperly denied as untimely defendant's request for leave to file a jury demand.

Despite this ruling, the better practice is to file the jury demand within the original deadline for filing the answer.

In Chandler v. Illinois Central R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 331, 798 N.E.2d 724 (2003), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the "relation back" of amended pleadings under 735 ILCS 5/2-616(b) should be liberally construed. After the statute of limitations has run, relation back exists for any cause of action arising from the same transaction or occurrence.